CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 4Mathematics, Computing, and Information ProcessingLogic, programming, and type systemsArtificial Intelligence Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record; its reference list is not available.

DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5: Harnessing Proof Assistant Feedback for Reinforcement Learning and Monte-Carlo Tree Search

Open access
Xin, Huajian, Ren, Z. Z., Song, Junxiao, Shao, Zhihong, Zhao, Wanjia, Wang, Haocheng, Liu, Bo, Zhang, Liyue, Lu, Xuan, Du, Qiushi, Gao, Wenjun, Zhu, Qihao, Yang, Dejian, Gou, Zhibin, Wu, Z. F., Luo, Fuli, Ruan, Chong·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2408.08152arXiv 2408.08152
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We introduce DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5, an open-source language model designed for theorem proving in Lean 4, which enhances DeepSeek-Prover-V1 by optimizing both training and inference processes. Pre-trained on DeepSeekMath-Base with specialization in formal mathematical languages, the model undergoes supervised fine-tuning using an enhanced formal theorem proving dataset derived from DeepSeek-Prover-V1. Further refinement is achieved through reinforcement learning from proof assistant feedback (RLPAF). Beyond the single-pass whole-proof generation approach of DeepSeek-Prover-V1, we propose RMaxTS, a variant of Monte-Carlo tree search that employs an intrinsic-reward-driven exploration strategy to generate diverse proof paths. DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5 demonstrates significant improvements over DeepSeek-Prover-V1, achieving new state-of-the-art results on the test set of the high school level miniF2F benchmark ($63.5\%$) and the undergraduate level ProofNet benchmark ($25.3\%$).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2408.08152

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Neural theorem proving has succeeded in formal mathematics proof generation and related tasks such as auto-formalization, efficient proof search, agentic tools, and automated conjecturing.

    “This method has notably succeeded in formal mathematics proof generation (Yang et al., 2024a; Xin et al., 2024; Lin et al., 2025b), alongside related tasks like auto-formalization”

    From Large Language Model Reasoning Failures (2026) · cites this paper as Xin et al., 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 4

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. J. A. Arjona-Medina, M. Gillhofer, M. Widrich, T. Unterthiner, J. Brandstetter, and S. Hochre- iter. Rudder: Return decomposition for delayed rewards. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 13566-13577, 2019.
  2. P. Auer. Using confidence bounds for exploitation-exploration trade-offs. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(Nov):397-422, 2002.
  3. Z. Azerbayev, B. Piotrowski, H. Schoelkopf, E. W. Ayers, D. Radev, and J. Avigad. Proofnet: Autoformalizing and formally proving undergraduate-level mathematics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12433, 2023. · arXiv
  4. Z. Azerbayev, H. Schoelkopf, K. Paster, M. Dos Santos, S. M. McAleer, A. Q. Jiang, J. Deng, S. Biderman, and S. Welleck. Llemma: An open language model for mathematics. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
  5. M. G. Bellemare, S. Srinivasan, G. Ostrovski, T. Schaul, D. Saxton, and R. Munos. Unifying count-based exploration and intrinsic motivation. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1479-1487, 2016.
  6. R. I. Brafman and M. Tennenholtz. R-max-a general polynomial time algorithm for near- optimal reinforcement learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(Oct):213-231, 2002.
  7. C. B. Browne, E. Powley, D. Whitehouse, S. M. Lucas, P. I. Cowling, P. Rohlfshagen, S. Tavener, D. Perez, S. Samothrakis, and S. Colton. A survey of monte carlo tree search methods. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in games, 4(1):1-43, 2012.
  8. Y. Burda, H. Edwards, A. Storkey, and O. Klimov. Exploration by random network dis- tillation. In Seventh International Conference on Learning Representations, pages 1-17, 2019.
  9. G. M. B. Chaslot, M. H. Winands, and H. J. van Den Herik. Parallel monte-carlo tree search. In Computers and Games: 6th International Conference, CG 2008, Beijing, China, September 29-October 1, 2008. Proceedings 6, pages 60-71. Springer, 2008.
  10. R. Coulom. Efficient selectivity and backup operators in Monte-Carlo tree search. In International conference on computers and games, pages 72-83. Springer, 2006.
  11. A. Fawzi, M. Balog, A. Huang, T. Hubert, B. Romera-Paredes, M. Barekatain, A. Novikov, F. J. R Ruiz, J. Schrittwieser, G. Swirszcz, et al. Discovering faster matrix multiplication algorithms with reinforcement learning. Nature, 610(7930):47-53, 2022.
  12. G. Feng, B. Zhang, Y. Gu, H. Ye, D. He, and L. Wang. Towards revealing the mystery behind chain of thought: A theoretical perspective. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, 2023.
  13. A. Garivier and E. Moulines. On upper-confidence bound policies for switching ban- dit problems. In International conference on algorithmic learning theory, pages 174-188. Springer, 2011.
  14. R. Houthooft, X. Chen, Y. Duan, J. Schulman, F. De Turck, and P. Abbeel. Vime: variational information maximizing exploration. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1117-1125, 2016.
  15. A. Q. Jiang, W. Li, S. Tworkowski, K. Czechowski, T. Odrzygóźdź, P. Miłoś, Y. Wu, and M. Jamnik. Thor: wielding hammers to integrate language models and automated theo- rem provers. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 8360-8373, 2022.
  16. A. Q. Jiang, S. Welleck, J. P. Zhou, T. Lacroix, J. Liu, W. Li, M. Jamnik, G. Lample, and Y. Wu. Draft, sketch, and prove: Guiding formal theorem provers with informal proofs. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
  17. C. Jin, A. Krishnamurthy, M. Simchowitz, and T. Yu. Reward-free exploration for reinforce- ment learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4870-4879. PMLR, 2020.
  18. L. Kocsis and C. Szepesvári. Bandit based Monte-Carlo planning. In European conference on machine learning, pages 282-293. Springer, 2006.
  19. A. Krishnamurthy, A. Agarwal, and J. Langford. PAC reinforcement learning with rich observations. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1848-1856, 2016.
  20. W. Kwon, Z. Li, S. Zhuang, Y. Sheng, L. Zheng, C. H. Yu, J. E. Gonzalez, H. Zhang, and I. Stoica. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with page- dattention. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, 2023.
  21. G. Lample, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lavril, X. Martinet, A. Hayat, G. Ebner, A. Rodriguez, and T. Lacroix. Hypertree proof search for neural theorem proving. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 26337-26349, 2022.
  22. J. Limperg and A. H. From. Aesop: White-box best-first proof search for lean. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs, pages 253-266, 2023.
  23. H. Lin, Z. Sun, Y. Yang, and S. Welleck. Lean-star: Learning to interleave thinking and proving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10040, 2024. · arXiv
  24. I. D. Lutz, S. Wang, C. Norn, A. Courbet, A. J. Borst, Y. T. Zhao, A. Dosey, L. Cao, J. Xu, E. M. Leaf, et al. Top-down design of protein architectures with reinforcement learning. Science, 380(6642):266-273, 2023.
  25. Mathlib Community. The Lean mathematical library. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs, page 367-381. As- sociation for Computing Machinery, 2020.
  26. L. d. Moura and S. Ullrich. The lean 4 theorem prover and programming lan- guage. In Automated Deduction-CADE 28: 28th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Virtual Event, July 12-15, 2021, Proceedings 28, pages 625-635. Springer, 2021.
  27. A. Y. Ng and S. J. Russell. Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 663-670, 2000.
  28. OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. · arXiv
  29. D. Pathak, P. Agrawal, A. A. Efros, and T. Darrell. Curiosity-driven exploration by self- supervised prediction. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2778-2787. PMLR, 2017.
  30. L. C. Paulson. Isabelle a Generic Theorem Prover. Springer Verlag, 1994.
  31. S. Polu and I. Sutskever. Generative language modeling for automated theorem proving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03393, 2020. · arXiv
  32. S. Polu, J. M. Han, K. Zheng, M. Baksys, I. Babuschkin, and I. Sutskever. Formal mathemat- ics statement curriculum learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01344, 2022. · arXiv
  33. S. Ross, G. Gordon, and D. Bagnell. A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 627-635. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2011.
  34. J. Schmidhuber. Formal theory of creativity, fun, and intrinsic motivation (1990-2010). IEEE transactions on autonomous mental development, 2(3):230-247, 2010.
  35. J. Schrittwieser, I. Antonoglou, T. Hubert, K. Simonyan, L. Sifre, S. Schmitt, A. Guez, E. Lockhart, D. Hassabis, T. Graepel, et al. Mastering atari, go, chess and shogi by planning with a learned model. Nature, 588(7839):604-609, 2020.
  36. J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov. Proximal policy optimiza- tion algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017. · arXiv
  37. Z. Shao, P. Wang, Q. Zhu, R. Xu, J. Song, M. Zhang, Y. Li, Y. Wu, and D. Guo. DeepSeekMath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024. · arXiv
  38. D. Silver, A. Huang, C. J. Maddison, A. Guez, L. Sifre, G. Van Den Driessche, J. Schrittwieser, I. Antonoglou, V. Panneershelvam, M. Lanctot, et al. Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search. nature, 529(7587):484-489, 2016.
  39. D. Silver, T. Hubert, J. Schrittwieser, I. Antonoglou, M. Lai, A. Guez, M. Lanctot, L. Sifre, D. Kumaran, T. Graepel, et al. A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and go through self-play. Science, 362(6419):1140-1144, 2018.
  40. J. Sorg, S. Singh, and R. L. Lewis. Reward design via online gradient ascent. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems-Volume 2, pages 2190-2198, 2010.
  41. R. S. Sutton. Temporal credit assignment in reinforcement learning. Phd thesis, University of Massachusetts, 1984.
  42. A. Thakur, Y. Wen, and S. Chaudhuri. A language-agent approach to formal theorem- proving. In The 3rd Workshop on Mathematical Reasoning and AI at NeurIPS, 2023.
  43. A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  44. H. Wang, H. Xin, C. Zheng, Z. Liu, Q. Cao, Y. Huang, J. Xiong, H. Shi, E. Xie, J. Yin, et al. Lego-prover: Neural theorem proving with growing libraries. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
  45. H. Wang, Y. Yuan, Z. Liu, J. Shen, Y. Yin, J. Xiong, E. Xie, H. Shi, Y. Li, L. Li, et al. DT-solver: Automated theorem proving with dynamic-tree sampling guided by proof-level value function. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 12632-12646, 2023.
  46. R. Wang, J. Zhang, Y. Jia, R. Pan, S. Diao, R. Pi, and T. Zhang. Theoremllama: Transforming general-purpose llms into lean4 experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03203, 2024. · arXiv
  47. J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, B. Ichter, F. Xia, E. H. Chi, Q. V. Le, and D. Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 24824-24837, 2022.
  48. S. Welleck and R. Saha. llmstep: Llm proofstep suggestions in lean. In The 3rd Workshop on Mathematical Reasoning and AI at NeurIPS'23, 2023.
  49. Z. Wu, J. Wang, D. Lin, and K. Chen. Lean-github: Compiling github lean repositories for a versatile lean prover. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17227, 2024. · arXiv
  50. H. Xin, D. Guo, Z. Shao, Z. Ren, Q. Zhu, B. Liu, C. Ruan, W. Li, and X. Liang. Deepseek- prover: Advancing theorem proving in llms through large-scale synthetic data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14333, 2024. · arXiv
  51. K. Yang, A. M. Swope, A. Gu, R. Chalamala, P. Song, S. Yu, S. Godil, R. Prenger, and A. Anandkumar. Leandojo: theorem proving with retrieval-augmented language models. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 21573-21612, 2023.
  52. S. Yao, D. Yu, J. Zhao, I. Shafran, T. L. Griffiths, Y. Cao, and K. Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: deliberate problem solving with large language models. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 11809- 11822, 2023.
  53. H. Ying, Z. Wu, Y. Geng, J. Wang, D. Lin, and K. Chen. Lean workbook: A large- scale lean problem set formalized from natural language math problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03847, 2024. · arXiv
  54. X. Zhao, W. Li, and L. Kong. Decomposing the enigma: Subgoal-based demonstration learning for formal theorem proving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16366, 2023. · arXiv
  55. C. Zheng, H. Wang, E. Xie, Z. Liu, J. Sun, H. Xin, J. Shen, Z. Li, and Y. Li. Lyra: Orchestrating dual correction in automated theorem proving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15806, 2023. · arXiv
  56. K. Zheng, J. M. Han, and S. Polu. miniF2F: a cross-system benchmark for formal olympiad- level mathematics. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
  57. Q. Zhu, D. Guo, Z. Shao, D. Yang, P. Wang, R. Xu, Y. Wu, Y. Li, H. Gao, S. Ma, et al. DeepSeek-Coder-V2: Breaking the barrier of closed-source models in code intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11931, 2024. · arXiv

Metadata

Authors
Xin, H., Ren, Z. Z., Song, J., Shao, Z., Zhao, W., Wang, H., Liu, B., Zhang, L., Lu, X., Du, Q., Gao, W., Zhu, Q., Yang, D., Gou, Z., Wu, Z. F., Luo, F., & Ruan, C.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2408.08152
arXiv
2408.08152
OpenAlex
W4406023812
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Mathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Logic, programming, and type systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
theorem proving, Lean 4, reinforcement learning from human feedback, Monte Carlo tree search, intrinsic rewards

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review